Archive for the ‘career women’ Category

There has always been a peculiar sort of comfort in the knowledge that, in the context of a relatively low murder rate, we [in the UK] are all more likely to be killed by a lover or spouse than by a stranger. To die at the hands of a stranger seems, somehow, even more horrifying. So today’s discovery by The Times, that random killings have increased by a third in just eight years to the point where they now equal the number of murders carried out as crimes of passion, is alarming.

..

The figures must be kept in perspective. Stranger murders, which rose from 99 in 1997 to 130 last year, still account for less than 10 per cent of the annual total. But the increase certainly puts reassurances about crime levels in a different light.

The increases have been largest in London, and Devon & Cornwall. It is not clear what these two regions have in common, except large numbers of disaffected young men who seem to be the most common perpetrators and also the most frequent victims.

..

The similarities between the approach taken by Greater Manchester Police and those in New York City are striking. In both places, police have made enormous headway by taking a zero-tolerance approach to criminal gangs and petty crime, and by backing grassroots efforts to lure young men away from both.

Interesting that they actually deign to note that men are more likely to be the victims of this rise in seemingly random homicide. But also note that they point out that it is likely to be “disaffected young men” carrying out such crimes. Indeed, although women are quite capable – and, these days, more than willing – to be violent, it cannot be denied that men are more likely to be behind these random acts of melees, mayhem, murder and mischief. Women are certainly increasingly violent too, often hanging out in gangs and getting up to yobbishness. However, it seems a majority are men and boys, and more importantly “disaffected young men.”

Another amusing comment from some rather angry sounding anonymous cunt:

Hmmm … you sound like a fat ugly man who is really …. oh yeah, bitter! I am a beautiful 5 foot ten redhead. I have my own business and have about 3 million banked. I work hard and work out … have a naturally perfect body. (modest too) I’ve had two to three proposals a year for marriage. Not interested in the eventual pot belly pig (husband). You need to give it up and shut up. Did your daddy fuck you and make you feel inadequate in your childhood?

Ah yes. The usual utter failure to even attempt to argue against me or anyone else here, just a long tirade of wild attempts at offending me (impossible to do given that I don’t give a flying ratfuck about what women think anymore) as well as all sorts of delusional ravings. Three-million banked? Hmmm. I’m sure, yeah. Probably means three-million on her credit cards. Naturally perfect body? Hmmm, right. Probably perfect for plugging the hole in the ozone layer.

Isn’t it a strange and staggering coincidence that every woman who hurls abuse and scorn at anti-feminists just happens to be supposedly drop-dead gorgeous and able to get any man, and/or has a brilliant and lucrative career.

Strange, then, that they spend their days and evenings not at their brilliant jobs, turning down endless marriage proposals or out partying but instead sit at computers hurling all sorts of wild and vicious abuse at the exact sort of men who could not give a damn about their silly complaints and whining.

It’s also very odd and beyond my comprehension why on Earth women think that just bragging about how supposedly gorgeous they are somehow constitutes a valid counter-argument!

These spinsters really do get their knickers in a twist don’t they?

Thanks for giving me a laugh anyway, Ms Anonymous. You may fuck off and get cancer now.

Hailed as a trailblazer when she was promoted to the top job two years ago, Bonnie Bleskachek’s tenure was troubled. Four firefighters — three women and a man — sued, alleging various acts of discrimination and sexual harassment.

This summer, an investigation by the city’s Department of Civil Rights found it likely that the department gave preferential treatment to lesbians or those who socialized with them.

If it had been a man found guilty of sexual harassment and discrimination, he’d have been sacked. Still, at least it’s a start.

Women frequently discriminate when it comes to hiring. Just note the all-female human resources departments – especially within the civil service – that seem to have an astonishing aversion to hiring men. When women insist men discriminate against women in the workplace, it’s simple projection; they would discriminate given the chance, so they assume us men do.

I bet she didn’t even get her job on merit either, she probably just got promoted to fill up the quota of lezzas.

The biggest losers in this are women who, despite their protests to the contrary, want marriage far more than men do. Women do not want to work all their lives and many regard a “career” as lasting about ten years until she finds a man to pay her bills and look after her. It’s now dawning on women that they are being forced to work on the lifelong treadmill that men have occupied since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and they’re not keen on this.

..

Welcome to the feminist dream sista. Enjoy your old age alone won’t you. Me? I’m off to a party.

A third of graduates believe they studied the wrong course at university, a survey from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development suggests.

Most of these said, with hindsight, they would have taken a more scientific or technical course, a business-based or a professional qualification.

The poll found that men who graduated in 2005 started on salaries which were, on average, 14% higher than women.

Well naturally women earn less; they tend to go for soft degrees like Humanities, or vague combined studies, or the utterly pointless nonsense of Women’s Studies. These don’t count for much in the real world. Women are more likely to choose these because of all the triumphant burbling in the press about how women are in much demand in the workforce because their multi-tasking and “people skills” (supposedly enhanced by doing things like Women’s Studies) are supposedly sought after, when in fact that only applies to fairly low-paying administration jobs.

But evidence of a gender gap emerged again, with only 57% of women who graduated in 2005 saving for a pension compared to 70% of men.

This is one of a number of articles that regularly crops up, triumphing the successes women have supposedly made over the last few decades (but forever failing to mention the big helping hand from Daddy Government that they needed) but bemoaning about how it has harmed men.

Naturally, the whole underlying complaint in these sorts of articles is that, far from being concerned about how this all effects men, they only care about how this will, in turn, effect women.

Plus there are all sorts of laughable claims of how brilliant and independent women are when, clearly, they’re not.

One of the few reasons to turn my television on is Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares, where the profanity-loving chef gives blunt advice to owners of failing restaurants on how they can improve.

On tonight’s show he visited a restaurant in Liverpool run by a mother and her two twenty-something daughters (there was no father/husband in sight for some reason.) At the outset, being interviewed before Gordon turns up, the trio of females naturally seem to see themselves as female before anything else. Lots of emphasis on how it’s a female-run restaurant, talk of girl power and such nonsense.

“Sistahs are doing it for themselves,” one of the daughters bragged triumphantly, referring to the restaurant her and her mother and sister are running, rather amusingly straight after we’ve been informed their restaurant is a hundred grand in debt and often gets only about two bookings each evening.

Women should avoid having children in their late thirties and early forties if they want help from active grandmothers who “leap about”, Harriet Harman, the constitutional affairs minister, said yesterday.

Harman – a feminist, like all other female Labour MPs – may appear to be showing signs of regretting the dumb feminist theory of leaving children until late in life, if at all.

But no. She’s motivated solely by selfishness, like all feminists:

She said that if her daughter left it, as she did, to have a daughter at 37, she would be 74 when she got to be a granny: “Far from being an active ‘leaping about’ granny, I might need my daughter to do a bit of shopping for me.

In other words, it was fine for her to have a child at 37, but there’s no way she wants her daughter to leave it that late lest she, Harman, be too old and inactive to enjoy being a grandmother.

In today’s modern workplace women are increasingly out-earning their male partners.

But it seems that becoming the main breadwinner does not necessarily make for a winner on the home front.

In fact, many women begrudge their partner’s lack of earning power.

Yes, we know; for all the bragging of their uber-business skills, most women still want a man to bankroll their way through life and, although they’re content to live off a man, the idea of it being the other way around infuriates them.

Strange how, when men provided for women, that was Patriarchal Oppression, yet for women to provide for men (which will be more common as women not only have hiring preferences but more men are sensibly deciding not to bother striving in the rat-race in an ungrateful society) it’s somehow horrible for poor women.

“I am woman, hear me repeatedly hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete!”This rather uptight mob of cyberfeminists refer to themselves by their initials, WINIT, which is no doubt meant to sound like “Win it”. Rather amusingly it also sounds just like “winnet”, which is Northern English slang for a piece of unwiped shit that clings to your anus (It’s true!) Rather appropriate really.

Check out the symbol at the bottom of the page, the one for the “European Union Social Fund”, meaning that the massive sprawling octopus of socialism that is the EU hands over plenty of taxpayers money to this women-only crew of snivelling pretentious arse-biscuits.

They had a big conference in 2005, which is introduced with plenty of nonsense to whip women up into a fury of victimhood and despair.

The under-representation of female ICT workers remains a source of frustration for all concerned with gender issues in relation to contemporary workplaces, and in relation to ‘new’ technologies.

Exactly. It’s a source of frustration to those concerned with gender issues (i.e. feminists) but of no fucking consequence or concern to those of us who live in the real world.

Like this:

At work today I caught a snippet of two young women yakking away at the photocopier. Amazingly they did not seem to be talking about television or shopping for once. They had been discussing some new company pension scheme or other. As I passed I heard one say to the other:

“I couldn’t imagine working until I’m sixty-eight, or whatever the new retirement age is.”

“Me neither,” said the other, “that’s just, like, so many years away. It’s ridiculous. I’ll be ready to retire in a few years!”

“Me too,” concluded the other.

The conversation drifted off, as did I.

That, to me, sums women up. Working full-time until you’re old is not for them. That’s the responsibility of men, to keep the economy going and pay the taxes that subsidise our own disenfranchisement under the Matriarchy.

Furthermore, these two women are typical young post-feminist go-getters, in their early-twenties and, on other occasions, have bragged about how women are so much better in the workplace, supposedly proved by their increasing numbers. Yet, still, working throughout their lives is the last thing on their minds. Clearly, retiring sometime in their thirties is their plan, and unless they intend on winning the lottery or investing their money wisely rather than spending it (the latter option being even less likely than the former) then clearly the only way they can do this is on the back of a man. Both are single but in relationships. Sadly, I dare say their boyfriends are probably unaware of being ear-marked to bankroll their career-gal’s early-retirement.

Stay single men. That way you’ll not only ensure your own security and have a more peaceful and productive life, but you’ll also ensure that it’ll mean one more women-firster fembot career-gal will have a taste of proper equality and be obliged to slave away at her job all her life. That’s what they said they wanted isn’t it? Entry to the workplace instead of the “oppression” of being at home whilst hubby goes out to provide? Well, women insist they’re always right, so give them what they wanted. Tough luck if they’ve changed their minds.

“There are a lot of women suffering in silence at the hands of other women,” says Zana Bytheway, executive director of Job Watch. “In some cases, bullying happens because people love the sense of power it gives them. It’s about ego. In other cases, I think bullying happens because people are under so much pressure. They have to do more in less time and with less staff. Productivity, profits, pressure. It’s a potent mix.

..

However, the most worrying workplace bully is the serial, or psychopathic, bully — and it seems women are particularly effective at this kind of behaviour. They intentionally hurt colleagues and revel in the pain they cause. “The psychopathic bully is very good at showing one face to the boss and another face to the people below them,” explains Egan.

Ah yes, those wonderful women and their caring natures, making the workplace sooo much more friendly than us horrible men.

Like this:

No, motherhood is NOT your fucking right. If you leave it too late, or your sex started a “liberation” movement like feminism that made fatherhood too risky for men, tough shit.

A growing generation of single career women are reaching their late 30s unmarried but still desperate to become mothers. Many are embarking on parenthood alone – and their quest will soon be made easier.

Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt wants the law changed to allow single women and lesbians to have fertility treatment without the need to prove there will be a father figure in the child’s life.

Here, Ruth Yahel, a 41-year-old TV production executive, explains why she decided from the outset to be a lone parent, and why – in her opinion – they should not be vilified:

Say what you want you whore, you will be vilified by all decent people.

Single mothers by choice are utterly selfish disgusting cunts. They are invariably parasites and a drain on the country. Even if they work they will use tax-subsidised child-care. Even if they do pay their way and don’t require any taxpayer support, they are still scum who are guilty of Child Abuse because they inflict illegitimacy on a child deliberately just because they want a baybeeeeh but can’t/won’t get a man.

We knew the deal going in. But we can’t escape the stubborn fantasy: That Mr. Right will step up and start bringing home the big bucks.

Burn that quote into your heads guys.

On the off-chance any men didn’t realise already, that’s what sums up women’s attitudes when they stormed triumphantly into the workplace. They still want some sucker to bail them out of having to work when they’re bored so they can work less or not at all, and sit at home and do fuck all.

Well fuck you career gals. Get back to that office, sit at your desk, do some work and stop your complaining and your dreams of finding a sucker to bank-roll your early retirement. Mr Right has left the building.

A bill to overhaul the UK state pension system has been included in the Queen’s Speech.

The state pension age will rise from 65 to 68 by 2046, if the bill passes.

Oh fucking great. We get to work until we drop dead.

This is why it’s annoying for us Brits to have around half of our earnings going to the government; we get shitty services. It wouldn’t be so bad if we had decent public services but the NHS is falling apart, public education is crap, public transport is a joke and we won’t get much of a state pension.

Women may have most to cheer from the Pensions Bill.

At present, many of them miss out on full state pension because they fall short of the requirement to make 39 years-worth of National Insurance Contributions.

Often women take time out of the workforce to look after children or relatives.

Yes, they CHOOSE to take time out of the workforce or quit it altogether.

The government wants to cut the number of years it takes to qualify for a full state pension to 30. It estimates that taking this step will mean that by 2025 nine out of 10 women will qualify for a full state pension

Whilst us men work til we drop. Bear in mind that our life expectancy is about five-years less than women’s of course, so they can work fewer years and have nice big career-breaks, and will qualify for a state pension for a good decade, whilst us men will work all our lives and probably die within a few years of retiring at 68.

I hate this country, I really do. If I can’t get to emigrate, or the number of refuges from the Matriarchy disappear, I’m going to quit work and live on benefits. Scrounge of the taxpayer just like women do.

Like this:

The screaming headline as tabloid size: “I WAS DESPERATE FOR A BABY AND I HAVE THE MEDICAL BILLS TO PROVE IT.” Some love-struck movie star? A lesbian celebrity? No. Germaine Greer, icon of 20th-century feminism. “I still have pregnancy dreams,” she confessed movingly in the premier issue of the British magazine Aura, “waiting with vast joy and confidence for something that will never happen.”

..

Not prepared? Why? Because to the uncompromising feminism of those early days, she writes, childbearing was constricting, suffocating, an enemy of a liberated woman’s larger hopes. “Getting pregnant meant the end of all good times . . . the mother-generation warned us darkly not to rush into childbearing, to have a ‘good time’ while we could.” And now, like Hannah, she weeps.

..

A joy [of motherhood] they [the original fembots] deliberately gave up, under the terms of the original feminist contract, in the name of autonomy and advancement.

That contract has now been largely rewritten. But for them, alas, too late.

The good that feminism has wrought is quite incalculable [Pffft! Only in so far as the infinitely small can be calculated – Duncan]. It gave half of humanity the chance to develop–something that had been denied it in practically every culture in every era. But like all great revolutions, feminism has its price and its victims.

This sorry mangina of a journo gives a nod towards feminism’s, ahem, “good”, and triumphantly ends it on a word guaranteed to excite any miserable feminist into a fit of self-pity and cries of further oppression.

“Victims.”

Oh yes, nothing feminists like more than to be seen as victims. That’s how they succeeded in the first place by screaching about how victimised they were by us evil men running around providing for them.

Like this:

Some of the women at work were discussing when to have babies the other day.

The two women who started going on about it are 25, both single but in long-term relationships. One started going on about how absurd it was that her sister was married and pregnant for a second time at the tender age of 27; she couldn’t imagine doing that herself, what with her career and everything. The other expressed bafflement that her own mum had married at 20 and had all four of her kids within the next seven-years.

Both of them insisted it was best to wait before having children, one claiming she’d wait “a good few years yet.”

“At least until your thirties,” insisted the other.

“That way you can live a little,” agreed the first woman, “Get your career going, that kinda thing.”

Another woman, who is single, unattached and lives with a couple of (female) flatmates, chipped by saying she would wait “as long as possible before having her first kid.” She’s 30 by the way.

DIAMONDS may be a girl’s best friend but for women of a certain age, it seems, nothing beats a new pair of heels.

The middle-aged British woman is a budding Imelda Marcos, choosing shoes above all else when they hit the shops, according to a survey.

The average woman aged 40 or over has 19 pairs, but 5 per cent have more than 100. Some of the 1,500 women surveyed by Woman & Home magazine had many more.

How shallow, superficial and generally obscenely pitiful that so many women’s lives these days revolve around spending money on things they don’t need.

Despite being career-minded, bread-winning ladies of the new millennium…

Hahah! How many women do you know are breadwinners? If they’re not married to a high-earning man they’re looking to do so.

…a third of respondents confessed that they lied to their partner about the cost of their shopping sprees.

That doesn’t surprise me.

New shoes can “change your body shape but also your attitude, they can empower women”, according to Camilla Morton, author of How to Walk in High Heels, who does not know (or won’t admit) how many pairs she owns, but said it is “certainly higher than 19”.

Two women police officers were yesterday handed the right to extra bonus payments for working at night – even though they only work day shifts.

The two officers, both working mothers, should get the extra money because their childcare commitments stop them from working anti-social hours, a tribunal ruled.

Denying them the allowance for working at night – which men can do – is sex discrimination, it said.

Its judgement means West Midlands police must now pay thousands of pounds in special allowances to single mother Susan Blackburn and her colleague, mother of two Victoria Manley, both of whom work part-time.

..

The cost to the taxpayer of paying police officers and other public sector workers extra allowances may run into hundreds of millions of pounds.

Ah yes, the old feminist definition of “equality”; namely, special treatment for women.

“I could work nights, like men do, but I damn well won’t, because I’m a woman, but pay me for working nights anyway. Me me me! Pay me! PAY ME! Give me money, can’t you see I have a CUNT for fucks sake! Give. Give! GIVE! GIIIIIIVE!!! RAAAGH! I am woman, hear me extort!!”

I noticed a notice on some telegraph poles in my neighbourhood recently, advertising a “Singles Nights for the over 30s” at some local pub tomorrow.

Methinks it’ll be mostly women there. If it were under 30s then it would possible be an even mix or mostly men; after all, twentysomething women tend to have what men want – youth and looks – and many twentysomething men tend not to yet have what women want – money, a house, an established career. Plus most young women don’t “lower” themselves to going to organized things like singles nights because they don’t really need to. They can just go into bars and look available. Unless they’re so ugly they look like Bernard Manning in a wig, or have accidentally wandered in to a gay bar, they’ll quite probably be flirted with at some point.

Beyond thirty, though, it’s a different story. Women – especially those beyond 35 – do not have what men want. Their looks are fading, their biological clocks are ticking and often there will be quite a bit of emotional baggage and possibly even an illegitimate bastard or two. Not to mention the fact that most women by that age will have humped a fair number of guys. This is not wife material. Men beyond thirty often have what women want; assets, a house, career, etc. Plus us men don’t have looks that fade as quickly as women’s, and we can also have children until well into middle-age.

Additionally, of course, singles nights are not really hook-up nights, for people to get together for casual sex. They’re meant to be for people looking for relationships of the long-term variety, and once more this will appeal more to commitment-desperate women than us men. If us men make it past 30 without marrying then it usually means we were never keen on marriage anyway, or had utterly ruled it out altogether, or if we were keen on marriage when younger then it became less important to us as we got older.